Safety, Risk, and Danger:
A New Dynamic Perspective
courting danger — for safety’s sake
by Darren Dalcher
Imagine a clash between two
worlds, one that is risk averse,
traditional, and conservative and
another that is risk seeking, oppor-
tunistic, and entrepreneurial. The
former is the old world, dedicated
to the precautionary principle
parading under the banner “Better
safe than sorry.” The latter is the
new world, committed to the
maxim “No pain, no gain.” The
question we are asked to address
is whether the defensive posture
exhibited by the old world or the
forever offensive stance of the new
world is likely to prevail.
Would their attitude toward risk
determine the outcome of this
question? The answer must be a
qualified yes. The notion of risk
has become topical and pervasive
in many contexts. Indeed, social
theorist Ulrich Beck [1] argues
that risk has become a dominant
feature of society and that it has
replaced wealth production as the
means of measuring decisions.
IN THAT CASE, LET’S SURVEY THE
COMBATANTS
Encamped on one bank, the
old world is likely to resist, for
example, the temptation of
genetically modified crops and
hormone-induced products
despite the advertised potential
Get the Cutter Edge free: www.cutter.com/consortium/
benefits. Risk is traditionally
perceived as a negative quantity:
danger, hazard, or potential harm.
Much of risk management is
predicated on the concept of the
precautionary principle, which
asserts that acting in anticipation
of the worst form of harm should
ensure that it does not materialize.
Action is therefore biased toward
addressing certain forms of risk
that are perceived as particularly
unacceptable and preventing them
from occurring, even if scientific
proof of the effects is not fully
established. According to this prin-
ciple, old-world risk regulators
cannot afford to take a chance
with some (normally highly
political) risks.
Old-world thinking supports
the adoption of precautionary
measures even when some cause-
and-effect relationships are not
fully understood. In other words,
the principle links hazards or
threats with (scientific) uncertainty
to demand defensive measures.
Following the lead offered by the
legal systems of Germany,
Sweden, and Denmark, the
precautionary principle is likely to
be fully embraced in guiding
European Commission policy
(such as the White Paper on Food
Safety published by the commis-
sion in 2000). When followed to
the extreme, this policy leads to
the pursuit of a zero-risk approach,
which, like zero defects, will
remain elusive.
Amassed opposite is the new
world, where risks convey poten-
tial, opportunity, and innovation.
Risk offers the potential for gains
and, occasionally, creative chances
and opportunities to discover new
patterns of behavior that can lead
to serious advantage over the
competition. Risk is thus a key
source of innovation. This can
be viewed as the aggressive entre-
preneurial approach to business.
WHOM WOULD YOU BET YOUR
MONEY ON?
In the old-world camp, risk
management is a disciplined way
of analyzing risk and safety prob-
lems in well-defined domains.
Complexity, ambiguity and uncer-
tainty are bad enough. When
mixed with human concerns, they
become intractable. New-world
problems manifest themselves as
human interactions with systems.
They are complex, vexing socio-
technical dilemmas that involve
multiple participants with
competing interests and conflicting
values (read: opportunities).
A ground rule for the clash is that
total elimination of risk is both
Vol. 15, No. 2 23
 impossible and undesirable. It is a
natural human tendency to try to
eliminate a given risk, however,
that may increase other risks or
introduce new ones. Furthermore,
the risks one is likely to attempt to
eliminate are the better-known
risks that must have occurred in
the past and about which more is
known. Given that elimination is
not an option, we are forced into
a more visible coexistence with
risks and their implications [5].
The rest of this article will focus
on the dynamic relationship
between safety, risk, and danger
as an alternative way of viewing
the risk–opportunity spectrum. It
will help to trace the roots of the
clash and begin to resolve the
conflict, enabling us to identify
a different perspective.
AWAY WITH DANGER?
The old world equates risk with
danger, in an attempt to achieve a
safer environment. If only it were
that simple! Safety may result from
the experience of danger. Early
programs, models, and inventions
are fraught with problems.
Experience accumulates through
interaction with and resolution of
these problems. Trial and error
leads to the ability to reduce error.
Eliminate all errors, and you
reduce the opportunity for true
reflective learning.
Safety, be it in air traffic control
systems, business environments,
manufacturing, or elsewhere,
is normally achieved through
the accumulated experience of
taking risks. In the old world, the
24 February 2002
Danger and benefits are
intertwined in complex ways,
ensuring that safety always
comes at a price.
knowledge of how to reduce risks
inevitably grows out of historical
interaction with risk. Solutions are
shaped by past problems. Without
taking risks to know how to
reduce risks, you would not know
which solutions are safe or useful.
What happens when a risk is actu-
ally reduced? Experience reveals
that safety also comes with a price.
As we feel safe, we tend to take
more chances and attract new
dangers. Research shows that an
increase in safety, accomplished
through such means as safety
belts in cars or helmets in sport,
encourages danger-courting
behavior, which often leads to a
net increase in overall risk taking.
There is a reduced incentive to
avoid a risk once protection
against it has been obtained.
Adding safety measures also adds
to the overall complexity of the
design process and the designed
system, and to the number of inter-
actions between the components
themselves and between people
and the system. This increases
both the difficulty of understanding
the interactions and the likelihood
of accidents and errors. In some
computer systems, adding safety
devices may likewise decrease the
overall level of safety. The more
interconnected the technology and
the greater the number of compo-
nents, the greater the potential for
components to affect each other
unexpectedly and to spread prob-
lems, and the greater the number
of potential ways for something to
go wrong.
So far we have observed that risk
and danger maintain a para-
doxical relationship, where risks
can improve safety and safety
measures can increase risks.
Danger and benefits are inter-
twined in complex ways, ensuring
that safety always comes at a
price. Safety, like risk, depends on
the perception of participants.
PREDICTING DANGER
The mitigation of risk, as practiced
in the old world, is typically predi-
cated on the assumption of
anticipation. The old-world view
assumes that risks can be identi-
fied, characterized, quantified, and
addressed in advance of their
occurrence. The separation of
cause and effect implied by these
actions depends on stability and
equilibrium within the system. The
purpose of intended action is to
return the system to the status quo
following temporary disturbances.
The old world equates danger with
deviation from the status quo,
which must be reversed. The
purpose of risk management is to
apply resources to eliminate such
disturbances. The old world is
busy projecting past experience
into the future. It is thus perfectly
placed to address previous battles
but not new engagements.
The assumption of anticipation
offers a bad bet in an uncertain
environment. An alternative
©2002 Cutter Information Corp.
strategy is resilience, which
represents the way an organism
or a system adapts itself to new
circumstances in a more active
and agile search for safety [2]. The
approach applied by new-world
practitioners calls for an ability to
absorb change and disruption,
keep options open, and deal with
the unexpected by conserving
energy and utilizing surplus
resources more effectively and
more creatively.
The secret in new-world thinking
is to search for the next acceptable
state rather than focus on returning
to the previous state. In the
absence of knowledge about
the future, it is still possible to
respond to change, by finding a
new beneficial state as the result
of a disturbance. Bouncing back
and grabbing new opportunities
becomes the order of the day.
Entrepreneurs, like pilots, learn to
deal with new situations through
the gradual development of a port-
folio of coping patterns and strate-
gies that are honed by experience.
Above all, they learn to adapt and
respond.
New-world actors grow up experi-
menting. Trial and experimentation
make them more knowledgeable
and capable. Experiments provide
information and varied experience
about unknown processes,
different strategies, and alternative
reaction modes. Intelligent risk
taking in the form of trial and
error leads to true learning and
ultimate improvement. The key to
avoiding dramatic failures, and to
developing new methods for and
Get the Cutter Edge free: www.cutter.com
practice in dealing with them, lies
in such learning-in-the-small.
Acceptance of small errors is crit-
ical to developing the skills and
capability needed to deal with
larger problems [3]. Small doses
of danger provide the necessary
feedback for learning and
improvement. Similar efforts are
employed by credit card compa-
nies, banks, and security organiza-
tions, which orchestrate frequent
threats and organized breaches
of security to test their capability
and learn new strategies and
approaches for coping with prob-
lems. In the new world, taking
small chances is a part of learning
— and so is failure [4]! Small,
recognizable, and reversible
actions permit experimentation
with new phenomena at relatively
low risk. Once again we para-
doxically discover that contained
experimentation with danger leads
to improved safety.
The secret in new-world
thinking is to search for the
next acceptable state rather
than focus on returning to
the previous state.
Risk management is therefore a
balancing act between stopping
accidents, increasing safety,
avoiding catastrophes, and
receiving rewards. Traditional
mechanistically based risk
management spends too much
time and effort minimizing
accidents: as a result, it loses the
ability to respond, ignores potential
rewards and opportunities, and
may face tougher challenges as
they accumulate. Because it
focuses excessively on reducing
accidents, rewards are often
neglected and excluded from
decisionmaking frames. Such
fixation on worst-case scenarios
and anticipation of worst-case
circumstances frequently leads
to an inability to deal with alter-
native scenarios.
In the new world, safety is not a
state or status quo, but a dynamic
process that tolerates natural
change and discovery cycles. It
can thus be viewed as a discov-
ered commodity. This resource
needs to be maintained and cher-
ished to preserve its relevance and
value. Accepting safety (and even
danger?) as a resource makes
possible the adoption of a long-
term perspective, and it thus
becomes natural to strive for the
continuous improvement of safety.
While many organizations may
object to the introduction of risk
assessment and risk management
because of the negative overtones,
it is more difficult to resist an
ongoing perspective emphasizing
improvement and enhanced
safety. After all, successful risk
assessment, like testing, is
primarily concerned with identi-
fying problems (albeit before they
occur). The natural extension,
therefore, is not to focus simply
on risk as a potential for occur-
rence, but to regard the safety to
Vol. 15, No. 2 25
 which it can lead as a resource
worth cherishing.
Like other commodities, safety
degrades and decays with time.
The safety asset therefore needs
continuous maintenance to
reverse entropy and maintain
its relevance with respect to an
ever-changing environment.
Relaxing of this effort will lead
to a decline both in the level of
safety and in its value as a corpo-
rate asset. In order to maintain its
value, the process of risk manage-
ment (or more appealingly, safety
management) must be kept
central and continuous.
Exploring risks as an ongoing
activity offers another strategic
advantage, in the form of the
continuous discovery of new
opportunities. Risk anticipation
locks actors into the use of tactics
that have worked in the past (even
doing nothing reduces the number
of available options). Resilience
and experimentation can easily
uncover new options and innova-
tive methods for dealing with
problems. They thus lead to
divergence, and the value of the
created diversity is in having the
ability to call on a host of different
types of solutions.
Danny Miller and Peter Freisen
observe that successful organiza-
tions appear to be sensitive to
changes in their environment [6].
Tom Peters and Robert Waterman
[7] report that successful compa-
nies typically:
26 February 2002
n Experiment more
n Encourage more tries
n Permit small failures
n Keep things small
n Interact with customers
n Encourage internal
competition and allow
resultant duplication
and overlap
n Maintain a rich information
environment
Uncertainty and ambiguity lead to
potential opportunities as well as
“unanticipated” risks. Resilience
is built through experimentation;
through delaying commitment;
through enabling, recognizing,
and embracing opportunities;
and, above all, through the acqui-
sition of knowledge, experience,
and practice in dealing with
adversity-in-the-small.
Risk management requires flexible
technologies arranged with
diversity and agility. Generally, a
variety of styles, approaches, and
methods are required to ensure
that more problems can be
resolved. This argument can be
extended to propose that such a
diverse armory should include
anticipation (which is essentially
proactive) as well as resilience
(essentially reactive in response
to unknowable events) in
various combinations. The two
approaches are not mutually
exclusive and can complement
one another as each responds to
a particular type of situation.
Resilience and exploration are
ideal under conditions of ambi-
guity and extreme uncertainty.
Anticipation can be used under
risky, yet reasonably certain, condi-
tions. The vast space in between
would qualify for a balanced
combination of anticipation and
resilience operating in concert.
The management of risks therefore
needs to be coupled to the nature
of the environment. After all,
managing progress is not about
fitting an undertaking to a (prob-
ably already redundant) plan; it
is about reducing the difference
between plan and reality. This
need not be achieved through
the elimination of problems
(which may prove to be a source
of innovation), but through adapta-
tion to changing circumstances.
By overcoming the momentum
that resists change with small
incursions and experiments
leading to rapid feedback, it
becomes possible to avoid major
disasters and dramatic failures
through acting in-the-small and
utilizing agile risk management.
REMEMBER THE TWO WORLDS?
Well, it appears we need both.
The old world is outstanding at
using available information in an
effort to improve efficiency and
execution, while the new world is
concerned with potential, promise,
and innovation.
The single most important pre-
requisite for success has often
©2002 Cutter Information Corp.
been described as conflict or
contention. The clash between
the worlds provides just that. It
gives rise to a repertoire of atti-
tudes, experiences, and expertise
that can be used as needed. Skill-
ful manipulation of the safety
resource and the knowledge of
both worlds would entail
balancing a portfolio of risks,
ensuring that the right risks are
taken and the right opportunities
are exploited, while keeping a
watchful eye on the balance
between safety and danger. A
satisfactory balance will thus facili-
tate the exploration of new possi-
bilities alongside the exploitation
of old and well-understood
certainties. By consulting all those
affected by risks, and by maxi-
mizing the repertoire, it becomes
possible to damp the social ampli-
fication of risk and to embrace risk
and danger from an intelligent and
collective perspective.
If this balance is not achieved, one
of the two worlds will prevail. It
will bring along its baggage, which
will dominate risk practice. A prac-
tice dominated by either “Better
safe than sorry” or “No pain, no
gain” will be unable to combine
the benefits of agile exploration
and mature exploitation. Intelligent
risk management should be a
dynamic balancing act that is
responsive to environmental feed-
back.
Perhaps more important, the
justification for creating such a
balance lies in taking a long-term
Get the Cutter Edge free: www.cutter.com
perspective and viewing safety as
an evolving commodity. Risk
management is not a service. A
specific risk may be discrete, but
risk management is a growing and
evolving body of knowledge — an
improving asset. In this improve-
ment lies the value of the asset.
There is no point in getting into
a panic about the risks of life
until you have compared the
risks which worry you with
those that don’t, but perhaps
should.
— Lord N. Rothschild
Once we move beyond viewing
risk management as a fad offered
by either world, we can find the
middle ground and the benefit of
both worlds.
REFERENCES
1. Beck, U. Risk Society: Towards
a New Modernity. Sage, 1992.
2. Dalcher, Darren. “The New
Project Management Mindset
for the 21st Century.” Paper
presented at the First British
Project Management Colloquium,
Henley-on-Thames, England,
December 1993.
3. Dalcher, Darren. “Falling Down
Is Part of Growing Up: The Study
of Failure and the Software
Engineering Community.” In
Proceedings of 7th SEI Education in
Software Engineering Conference,
pp. 489-496. Springer-Verlag, 1994.
4. Dalcher, Darren. “Simplicity and
Power: When More Means Less,”
IEEE Computer (May 1999), p. 117.
5. Dalcher, Darren. “Life Cycle
Design and Management.” In
M. Stevens et al. (eds.), Project
Management Pathways: A
Practitioner’s Guide. APM Press,
forthcoming 2002.
6. Miller, D., and P. H. Friesen.
“Archetypes of Strategy
Formulation.” Management
Science, Vol. 24 (1978), pp. 921-923.
7. Peters, T. J., and R. H.
Waterman. In Search of Excellence:
Lessons From America’s Best-Run
Companies. Harper and Row, 1982.
ADDITIONAL READING
Hood, C., and D.K.C. Jones
(eds.). Accident and Design:
Contemporary Debates in Risk
Management. UCL Press, 1996.
Postrel, V. The Future and Its
Enemies: The Growing Conflict
over Creativity, Enterprise, and
Progress. Scribner, 1999.
Wildavsky, A. Searching for Safety.
Transaction Books, 1988.
Darren Dalcher leads the Software
Forensics Centre, a specialized unit
focusing on systems failures, software
pathology, and project failures, at
Middlesex University.
Mr. Dalcher can be reached at School of
Computing Science, Middlesex University,
Trent Park, Bramley Road, London N14
4YZ, United Kingdom. Tel: +44 020 8411
5313; Fax: +44 020 8411 5924; E-mail:
d.dalcher@mdx.ac.uk.
Vol. 15, No. 2 27